Arizona's Got A Big Problem - Itself

No one need speak English to understand that Arizona's recent slate of legislation was their way of coming out. They opened up that closet door and now proudly strut their hatred of anyone who doesn't look, speak, or act just like them. Within a few short weeks, Arizona began demanding proof of U.S. residency, banning ethnic studies, throwing teachers with accents out of English classrooms, and spending exorbitant amounts of money and time conducting immigration stings. It seems pretty clear that Arizona has made up its mind to become a homogeneous haven for white, non-Hispanic people.

Arizona claims the passage of anti-immigrant law (SB 1070) was not racially motivated. The first clue that something is wrong is the evaluation of the law's architects. The language was crafted by a lawyer named Kris Koboch who acts as counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed as an anti-immigrant hate group since 2007. SPLC's Mark Potok had this to say about FAIR:

FAIR is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publishes annual listings of such organizations. Among the reasons are its acceptance of $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a group founded to promote the genes of white colonials that funds studies of race, intelligence and genetics. FAIR has hired as key officials men who also joined white supremacist groups. It has board members who write regularly for hate publications. It promotes racist conspiracy theories about Latino immigrants. It has produced television programming featuring white nationalists.

Mr. Koboch is a birther who is listed on SPLC's profiles of 20 Anti-Immigrant Leaders. He's also currently running for Secretary of State in Kansas.

God help Kansas.

Next in line comes Arizona Republican State Senator Russell Pearce. He's the guy who introduced the legislation. He's described by Change.Org as someone who has "made it his personal mission" to institute state policies attacking undocumented immigrants. A decades-long veteran of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, Pearce has repeatedly attempted to coerce local law enforcement to get more involved in federal immigration policy.

Pearce is also an associate of J.T. Ready, a well-known neo nazi and advocate for "white pride." Here's a picture of the two of them together at a neo nazi rally in Nebraska.

....and a picture of Mr. Ready participating in a neo-nazi rally in Minnesota.....

And again at a rally where Ready lauds Pearce for the statesman he is by supporting white-pride perspective....

Then there's that incident in 2006 when Pearce sent out an email to his supporters promoting a white supremacist publication called "Who Rules America." It criticized the media for promoting multiculturalism and racial equality, for portraying "any racially conscious White Person" as a bigot, and for promoting the silly idea that the Holocaust actually took place. He got called on the carpet for it and apologized. Apologized for sending it out. Not for believing those things or for seeing the incredible inappropriateness of being an avowed racist while holding an office that requires him to protect the interests of ALL the people he represents.

Take a look at the last three months of legislation sponsored by Pearce:

February 2010 - April 16, 2010 - Passage of SB 1011 via SB 1108 which requires colleges and universities to allow faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus. This required an amendment to the state's constitution.

February 18, 2010 - Passage of SB 1102, allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons without permits anywhere except for those locations prohibited by law.

April 16, 2010 - Passage of SB 1108, allowing any American citizen who is not a felon to carry a concealed weapon anywhere within the state of Arizona except in those places already prohibited by law. Limits concealed weapons in bars to those with Arizona permits.

April 23, 2010 - Passage of SB 1070, law enforcement to determine the residency status of anyone the have reasonable suspicion of being in the U.S. illegally.

April 30, 2010 - Arizona State Board of Education removes teachers with accents from classrooms.

May 7, 2010 - Passage of SB 1018, that allows for the continued use of controversial speed cameras on city roadways, which many contend violate civil liberties and are merely for revenue.

May 11, 2010 - Passage of HB 2281, prohibiting courses on ethnic studies in schools.

May 11, 2010 - Passage of HB 2629, originally introduced by then Rep. Russell Pearce in 2008, which allows residents to draw their weapons and/or use deadly force without attempted to retreat first in situations where they consider their personal safety at risk. Also prohibts the collection of serial numbers or personal information about gun owners.

May 14, 2010 - Introduction of SB 1097, a bill that would compel teachers and administrators to determine the legal status of students and their families before allowing them to enroll in school.

Rachel Maddow did a short piece on Koboch and Pearce. It's boggles the mind that their association is going on right in front of us and few people are even blinking.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Then there's the self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff in America." Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County has been cheerfully ignoring the rights of citizens, his staff, and the undocumented for many years. Not content to stop there, he also ignores direct instruction from the federal government to stop conducting immigration stings, saying they have no authority to tell him how to do his job.

Sheriff Joe's inhumane treatment of others, including those that resulted in death, is well-documented. As a result, Maricopa County has paid out more than $43 million in lawsuits for abuse and neglect at the hands of the Sheriff's office. In 2009, Arpaio stated on national television that he considered it "an honor" to be compared to the KKK. So it shouldn't be surprising that charges of civil rights violations continue to be reported to this day or that Arpaio is under investigation for alleged abuse of power on a number of occasions. When asked for examples constituting "reasonable suspicion" for demanding to see someone's proof of residency, Arpaio replied that one of them was speaking Spanish.

No matter how much the folks in Arizona claim this bill isn't racially based, the facts say otherwise. This legislation is lambasted by labor and civil rights organizations all across the country and crafted by folks who invest money and time into "white pride." Arizona has made anyone with dark eyes, brown skin, or speaking a language other than English suspect.

Pearce and Koboch and Arpaio have ulterior motives alright, and it's to make sure they get to go about the business of ethnic cleansing with as little resistance as possible.

Why The Arizona Boycott Is Fair

The passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 has the country on edge. Regardless of which side folks are on, emotions are running high. There are those who feel a state boycott is appropriate. Others believe Arizona had little choice but do what it did in light of an unresponsive federal government.

You'll find me on the side supporting the boycott.

Boycotts are standard tools of political protest. Are innocent residents being unfairly punished as a result? Well, that depends upon whether they're really innocent or not. Just because the bill was not a ballot issue doesn't mean the people of Arizona were powerless.

Where were the voices of outrage while the state legislature was hearing the bill? Where were the protests like the ones that occurred after Gov.Brewer signed the bill into law? If people didn't like what was being considered, why weren't there concerted efforts to get members of the state legislature to listen to the people and vote the will of their constituents?

Where were the businesses in all this consideration? Those so inclined to do so were still hiring illegals. Other businesses were not making a whole lot of noise telling them to stop, or reminding them of the effects it would have on everyone.

Some people claim they were on the firing line, doing everything they could to create a different outcome. In that case, you have my sympathy and my apology. I apologize for any harm you may experience as a result of a situation you did not create. And you have my sympathy for living in a state where the majority is made up of blockheads.

Whether the reason residents didn't stand up to SB 1070 was because of complacency or actual support for the bill matters little now because the outcome is still the same: there is a new law in place that was put there by either tacit approval of the bill or abject failure to try and stop it.

Which means that citizens of Arizona bear responsibility for what has happened. Folks around the country were warning the state of a possible boycott weeks before the bill was signed into law. Even your own Rep. Grijalva was advocating for a boycott. So it sounds just a little disingenuous to hear residents cry foul over the same situation they did little to prevent and a consequence they were warned would occur.

Standing Up for What's Right

Last week, Arizona passed a law requiring law enforcement to determine the residency status of individuals they had "reasonable suspicion" of being in the U.S. illegally. Many people, myself included, were outraged and began boycotting the state as a result. Such a decision doesn't come without consequence.

To be fair, Arizona really does have a serious problem with illegal immigrants. There are a lot of them there; their presence has strained state resources, brought about an increase in crime, and given the Mexican drug cartel a stronger foothold in the U.S. Tired of waiting for the federal government to address the issue, the Arizona Senate crafted and passed their own bill to deal with the problem. But this bill isn't the right way to achieve their goal.

When the law goes into effect, local police officers will be required to question people about their immigration status if they have reason to suspect they are here illegally. Those who fail to produce documents could be arrested, jailed for up to six months, and fined $2,500. Of course, those who are found to be here illegally will be deported.

But what is sufficient documentation? Last week, two different truckers were stopped and detained until their wives could produce birth certificates for them. A driver's license and social security card were considered insufficient evidence. One waited for four hours in handcuffs. Turns out he really was born and raised here in the U.S.

Some say the law can only be enforced if an individual is stopped for some other observed offense. If that is true, it seems to be on paper only. Not waiting for the law to actually take effect, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Phoenix conducted an immigration sweep two days ago and said in a post-sweep interview that he considers the inability to speak English reasonable suspicion. But before that, he said exactly the opposite.

Others say the law is only enforcing the federal statute. Even if that is true (which I don't believe for a second), the state does not have authority to circumvent federal authority. (Hint: it says that right there in the U.S. Constitution: Article I - Section 1, Article I - Section 8, Article VI - Clause 2, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment).

Either way, the law makes racial profiling legal. It not only allows it, it requires it, all the while thumbing its nose at the silly notion that the federal government has supreme authority over this issue. Folks can deny it all they want but the actions of law enforcement and the seeming tacit community's approval of same tell a very different story than what proponents of the new law claim.

While the bill was being considered in the state legislature, people from all over the country, including Arizona's own member of the House of Representatives, Raul Grijalva, warned of a nationwide boycott if they passed the bill. Now folks are all up in arms because people like me are actually following through. How dare we hurt innocent citizens? Don't we know the economy is already terrible in Arizona? It's not fair to make things worse. Or so they say. My thinking is this: if you supported the bill, you deserve to be boycotted. If you didn't support SB1070 but did nothing to prevent it, you lost your right to complain about the outcome.

But now that it's done, the country has quickly become divided. Hate mail, threats, and violence has increased against elected officials who oppose hate, threats, and violence. Personal attacks are no longer limited to elected officials or public community leaders. More and more, individuals are being targeted on websites, social media outlets, and in their communities. How do I know? Because I'm one of those targets.

All because I'm doing what I said I would do if they did what they did. I have been subjected to vile and hateful missives, promising to do all kinds of terrible things. I'm receiving threatening emails from people I've never heard of. Callers hang up when I answer the phone. And though I haven't been able to verify it, I'm told that my picture and my personal information have been posted on two Republican websites with the note that I am a target.

The racist, homophobic, misogynist, intolerant people among us are willing to use tactics we are not. We won't fight fire with more fire. They know that about us and get away with their garbage as a result.

We all know that racist, bigoted people have been subjecting minorities to all kinds of atrocities throughout time. The difference between those situations and this one is that Arizona is a legal entity of this country, bound by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it made discrimination and racial profiling legal. This law says to all the world that we're done limiting discrimination to good ole boy circles and KKK cliques; we're done trying to keep it quiet. We're taking our hatred, bigotry, racism, and intolerance public and declaring to all the world that this piece of trash represents the new America.

It will be up to the courts to decide if the law is actually unconstitutional. I think it's just another stellar example of GOP hypocrisy: Accuse Democrats of injecting too much government into the private sector when it suits you but consider a law like this to be completely appropriate and not at all intrusive when you want to put "those" people in their place.